Wishing Won’t Make it So
This week President Obama and the Democratic congress is beginning work on what they call health care reform. While many trial balloons have been sent up, the consensus seems to be landing on Senator Kennedy’s plan, which theoretically creates a public/private option. In reality, it creates a lot more requirements for private plans, which will undoubtedly push private insurers out of the market. Scott E. Harrington, professor of health-care management and insurance and risk management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, analyzes this plan in the Wall Street Journal, suggesting that it won’t be long before private plans are driven out of business.
Folks, let’s face it. It’s government involvement in the health care system that has caused most of the problems we have today. Health care prior to 1960 was quite good and quite affordable. From the beginning of Medicare and Medicaid in the mid-1960s, the government has paid less than the cost of care while increasing regulatory requirements. When I worked in the hospital field 25 years ago, we were struggling to make budget under increasing federal cost constraints. The situation has only gotten worse. Yes, some people have problems getting health insurance and yes, the cost is exorbitant. But government involvement will only make it worse. It will ultimately result in shortages and rationing, just like in every other country with a national health system. And just how do we expect inexperienced politicians who've never run anything to solve a problem that has baffled the professionals for decades?
The Obama administration still doesn’t know how it will cover the cost of this plan – approximately $1 trillion over 10 years. Obama has proposed $634 billion in tax increases and spending cuts as a down payment on the plan and is soon expected to outline an additional $300 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts. And this in addition to the trillions already spent on bailouts and the proposed new budget. The administration has proposed taxing employer-paid health benefits, which will result in fewer of those and reduce personal disposable income -- a plan which he criticized McCain for proposing during the campaign, by the way...
Ask yourself: what has government ever done well or for a lower cost than private industry? If you love the DMV and postal service, you’ll love national health care. Personally, I’ll keep what I’ve got.
By the way, now the Kennedy Plan proposes covering long term care – a true sink hole.
Labels: government, health care costs, national health care, universal health coverage
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Universal Health Insurance—Do We Really Want It?
Randy Bayne at California Notes asks, “Why can’t we all have health care like Mom’s?” I posted a response that I thought I’d cross post here.Unfortunately, a single payer system isn't all it's cracked up to be. Neither is Medicare, and certainly not MediCal (Medicaid elsewhere). All you need to do is look at the nations that have it--the poor quality, cattle herding care, LONG waits for routine tests and procedures, and the complacence among providers.
When the government got involved in US health care in the '60s, costs skyrocketed and have continued going up, and quality went down. Ask a Medicaid person if they're happy with their care, and see if you would like that level of care.
There are negotiations going on now to limit--again--payments to Medicare providers, which will mean more leaving the system, just as providers no longer care for Medicaid patients.
As much as we wish it weren't true, there really is no free lunch and the free market system still works best--in health care and all else. Your mother is very fortunate to be getting the care she is. I have started attending my mom's medical appointments just so she will get the level of care I would expect for the price she's paying--which isn't cheap.
Labels: Medicaid, Medicare, universal health coverage
Friday, January 12, 2007
Medicare Part D Negoiated Prices will Hurt Elderly
The House of Representatives today passed H.R.4, which would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prices with drug companies. The negotiated prices would be standardized across the U.S. for Medicare Part D beneficiaries.Republican opponents say the bill, which passed 255-170, would actually raise drug prices and retard pharmaceutical competition, putting a crimp in research on new drugs. Actuaries from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) agree.
In an OpEd for The Hill, Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute and author of “Miracle Cure: How to Solve America’s Health-Care Crisis and Why Canada Isn’t the Answer” challenges the wisdom of Nancy Pelosi’s “fix” for Medicare Part D. Her article is well worth the read as she points out that negotiating Part D will result in a restrictive formulary and lowered life expectancy.
U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Acting Administrator, Leslie Norwalk agrees. She said that the only leverage in bargaining for discounts with drugmakers is to block some products from the list of covered drugs.
They're right. Government involvement in health care has done nothing but increase costs since its passage in 1965. Not because more people are covered, but because when you have such a huge purchaser of any good or service, that purchaser can dictate prices even to the detriment of the supplier.
In health care, Medicare and Medicaid have not covered their costs since their inception. The difference is shifted to private insurers and patients without insurance, resulting in more people without health insurance. And of course, those pockets are not endlessly deep, so we’ve seen providers go out of business as well as a significant increase in overall health care costs.
In the fifteen years following the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, expenditures for health care in dollars increased nearly sixfold, and health care costs rose from 6 percent to 9 percent of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). In the next 20 years, costs increased another fivefold, and more than doubled as a percent of GDP.
U.S. Health Care Costs
Dollars Percentage of GDP
1950 $12.7 billion 4.5 percent
1965 $40 billion (est.) 6 percent
1980 $230 billion 9 percent
2000 $1.2 trillion 14 percent
Anything the government does to require price negotiation will do more harm than good for both seniors and the rest of us. Medicare Part D is bad now; under the Democratic plan, it will only get worse.
Labels: elderly parents, health care costs, Medicare Part D, universal health coverage
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Sandwich Generation Frustration with Secure Horizons
Today was a day of Gen Sandwich Frustration. While trying to get details on the differences between the HMO and PPO. I called Secure Horizons, which is owned by United Healthcare, about 11:30 am. After navigating my way through the menu, a recorded voice assured me that my call was important to them. For the next 30 minutes, I listened to the same two songs played over and over and over and …. You get the picture. Thank God it was classical. I have sat on hold with other companies listening to rock or rap. Not pretty.But back to my story. After 30 minutes on hold, I had to leave for an appointment. I sent a message through the website indicating how long I had been holding and asked for someone to please call me between 2:00 and 3:00 pm. I got back about 2:00 and waited. A little after 3:00, having received no call, I tried again. After 39 minutes, I had to hang up to take a call on the other line. Tried again, and waited another 32 minutes, sent another email, and gave up.
Turns out that Mom had had a similar experience. She thought she could get answers, and waited on hold as long as she could before needing to go see my step dad. This isn’t the first time we’ve waited more than 30 minutes for customer service. In fact, I think in my year and a half of dealing with Secure Horizons, 20 minutes is my shortest wait. What incredible disrespect for the people who have chosen to purchase your product!
This is an excellent reason to avoid government operated universal health care. If this is the service we get from a for-profit company serving Medicare clients, supposedly dedicated to customer service and with freedom of choice for subscribers, what would government health care be like?? If you’re not sure, try calling the IRS. Although come to think of it, I’ve had better service from the IRS than from Secure Horizons.
Guess I’ll have to try again tomorrow. With an enrollment deadline looming, we need answers.
Labels: Medicare, sandwich generation, Secure Horizons, universal health coverage